MORELAND APPEAL. (11/08/54)

Appeal, No. 174, March T., 1954, from order of Court of Common Pleas of Indiana County, Dec. T., 1953, No. 373, in re Burrell Township, Indiana County, etc. Appeal dismissed.

COUNSEL

Edwin M. Clark, with him Donald M. Miller, for appellant.

Earl R. Handler, with him Parnell, Handler & Malcom, for appellee.

Before Stern, C.j., Stearne, Jones, Chidsey, Musmanno and Arnold, JJ.

Author: Jones

[ 379 Pa. Page 188]

OPINION BY MR. JUSTICE JONES

This matter is here on a certiorari of narrowest scope. The statutory provision under which the proceeding was instituted in the court below (Sec. 1407 of the Pennsylvania Election Code of 1937, P.L. 1333, 25 PS § 3157) prohibits, by its express terms, the allowance or granting of an appeal from any order or decree of the court of common pleas made in pursuance of the authority thereby conferred. Accordingly, our review is limited to an inquiry as to the jurisdiction of the court and the regularity of the proceedings: see Flood Appeal, 372 Pa. 486, 489, 94 A.2d 565; compare, also, Twenty-First Senatorial District Nomination, 281 Pa. 273, 279, 126 A. 566, construing a similar statutory prohibition of appeal in Section 15 of the Direct Primary Act of July 12, 1913, P.L. 719, as amended by the Act of July 9, 1919, P.L. 839, and Act of May 25, 1921, P.L. 1125.

The jurisdiction of the court below in the instant case is unquestionable and the proceedings were regular. Section 1407 of the Election Code confers upon any person aggrieved by an order or decree of a County board regarding the computation or canvassing of the returns of a primary or election a right of appeal to the court of common pleas from such order or decision. what the present appellant complained of in his appeal to the court below was the county board's refusal to cumulate the votes cast for him as a Republican nominee and as a Democratic nominee for the office of justice of the peace in his township. Our certiorari thus being limited, it follows that the merit of the decision is not beofre us for review.

Since, however, the appellant stresses our recent decision in James Appeal, 377 Pa. 405, 105 A.2d 64, it is not amiss to point out that that case is readily distinguishable from the present. In the instant case,

[ 379 Pa. Page 189]

the complainant's name was printed twice on the ballot as a candidate for the office of justice of the peace, once as a nominee of the Republican Party and once as a nominee of the Democratic Party. The two printings of his name on the ballot for the same office was in direct contravention of Section 1003(d) of the Election Code (25 PS § 2963) which provides that "Whenever any candidate shall receive more than one nomination for the same office, his name shall be printed once, and the names of each political party so nominating him shall be printed opposite the name of such candidate, arranged in the same order as candidates' names are required to be arranged" (Emphasis supplied). In marked contrast, the complaining nominee's name in James Appeal was printed but once on the ballot. The votes which he received elsewhere than where his name was printed on the ballot were cast by means of stickers, bearing his name, which certain electors pasted at the appropriate place on the ballot. None of the votes cast for him violated any statutory inhibition. Their cumulation was therefore proper.

Before concluding, we deem it necessary to advert to the inordinate length of time that this matter has been in litigation for which, it should be noted, the court below was not at fault. A year has passed since the election out of which this dispute arose and, yet, the commissions to which the two successful candidates for the office of justice of the peace are entitled have been withheld by the Secretary of the Commonwealth pending final disposition of this controversy and, as a consequence, the township has been without a justice of the peace all of that time.

It is the policy of the law that disputes arising out of elections by conclusively resolved promptly in order that the functions of government may be performed ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.